☢ test - Í

Dawson v. State, 258 Ga. 380, 369 S.E.2d 897 (1988). ‘A motion for new trial may be amended any time on or before the ruling thereon. OCGA § 5-5-40(b). After his entry of appearance, appellate counsel [in this case had approximately seven weeks] and an entire evidentiary hearing in which to amend the motion for new trial in order to add a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, before the ruling of the trial court on the motion precluded such amendment. This was not done, although “ample opportunity” was available. Sartin v. State, 223 Ga.App. 759, 479 S.E.2d 354 (1996). Accordingly, we will not consider such claim raised for the first time on direct appeal by appellate counsel, when direct appeal does not mark the first appearance of appellate counsel. [Cit.]. This enumeration of error is waived.’ (Emphasis in original.) Miller v. State, 226 Ga.App. 509, 516(6), 486 S.E.2d 911 (1997).” Accord, Calloway v. State , 332 Ga.App. 364, 772 S.E.2d 812 (May 14, 2015) (“The rule that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment requires that the claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available.”). 85. PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION, FAILURE TO OBTAIN, see subheading INSANITY/MENTAL ILLNESS/MENTAL RETARDATION DEFENSE, FAILURE TO PRESENT, above 86. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Tyner v. State, 313 Ga.App. 557, 722 S.E.2d 177 (January 12, 2012). Shoplifting conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance in “failing to request that jury selection, opening statements, and closing arguments be transcribed. “Tyner has not shown — or even argued — how this alleged failure prejudiced her or affected the outcome of her trial, and thus, she cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance on this ground. See Wright v. State, 274 Ga. 730, 732(2)(a) (559 S.E.2d 437) (2002) (holding that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance based on his failure to have voir dire, opening, or closing transcribed when defendant did not assert that anything harmful or prejudicial occurred during those portions of the trial).” Accord, Young v. State , 327 Ga.App. 852, 761 S.E.2d 801 (July 7, 2014). Sharp v. State, 278 Ga. 352, 602 S.E.2d 591 (September 13, 2004). “‘[A] general unspecified hope of reversible error during voir dire does not win a new trial on the ground that a record should have been made so as to accommodate a search for error now buried in unrecorded history.’ (Footnote omitted.) Primas v. State, 231 Ga.App. 861, 863(2) (501 S.E.2d 28) (1998). Sharp has failed to meet the first prong of Strickland. ” Accord, Matthews v. State , 284 Ga. 819, 672 S.E.2d 633 (January 26, 2009); Hunt v. State , 288 Ga. 794, 708 S.E.2d 357 (March 18, 2011); Eskew v. State , 309 Ga.App. 44, 709 S.E.2d 893 (March 30, 2011); Dunlap v. State , 291 Ga. 51, 727 S.E.2d 468 (May 7, 2012) ( not per se ineffective to fail to have voir dire, opening and closing arguments recorded in non-death penalty case ); Norton v. State , 293 Ga. 332, 745 S.E.2d 630 (July 1, 2013) (same as Dunlap ); Adams v. State , 322 Ga.App. 782, 746 S.E.2d 261 (July 10, 2013) (same); Curtis v. State , 330 Ga.App. 839, 769 S.E.2d 580 (March 2, 2015). Marshall v. State, 265 Ga.App. 556, 594 S.E.2d 661 (February 2, 2004). “Marshall had no right to have the arguments of counsel recorded, and therefore was not deprived of any right from his trial counsel’s failure to request that such arguments be recorded. [cits.]” 87. RECUSAL OF PRESIDING JUDGE, FAILURE TO SEEK Battle v. State, S15A1510, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 1085248 (March 21, 2016). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed. No ineffective assistance based on failure to seek trial judge’s recusal (due to defendant’s not-very- credible plot to kill the judge, prosecutors and detectives in the case). Having determined that police investigators didn’t take the plot seriously, and after discussing with Battle, counsel made the strategic decision not to seek recusal. “In addition, Appellant has not demonstrated that if a timely motion to recuse Judge Ellis had been filed, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been more favorable to him. … Judge Ennis would not have been required to recuse even if Gardner had filed a timely motion seeking his recusal. Moreover, [defense counsel] testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he did not believe that Judge Ennis made any improper rulings at trial, and even now Appellant points to no allegedly improper rulings that might have been motivated by bias on the part of Judge Ennis. Furthermore, the jury had no knowledge of the alleged plot, and the evidence of Appellant’s guilt was overwhelming. Accordingly, Appellant failed to prove Strickland prejudice.” Mazza v. State, 292 Ga.App. 168, 664 S.E.2d 548 (June 24, 2008). No ineffective assistance for failure to object to magistrate presiding over defendant’s felony trial by appointment. “Mazza has failed to make any showing that he was denied a fair trial by virtue of the appointment. See Strozier v. State, 277 Ga. 78, 82(8) (586 S.E.2d 309) (2003). Moreover, in his testimony during the hearing on Mazza’s motion for new trial, Mazza’s trial counsel indicated that he did not object to the appointment of the magistrate because he believed that Mazza would actually benefit from having the particular magistrate preside over his trial rather than the superior court judge originally assigned to the case. Clearly,